Johann Lang (Ioannes Langus Silesius) and his 1565 Justin: paratext, authenticity, and Q. 107

Integrated dossier. This file consolidates, without duplication, the project’s findings on Johann Lang’s three-volume Divi Iustini philosophi et martyris Opera (Basel: Froben, 1565), drawing together material previously kept in separate files:

• the Epistola Nuncupatoria to Maximilian (Tomus I) — full analysis;
• the preface to the Responsiones ad Orthodoxos (Tomus III, p. 54) — genre defence and authenticity;
• the annotation to Quaestio LXXXII (Tomus III) — the Origen anachronism;
• Lang’s rendering of Q. 107 and its interpretive logic;
• the appended poems and the separate Praefatio to the Oratio ad Gentiles (Tomus I).

Verification status. Latin passages are transcribed from supplied page images of the 1565 Froben print and are reliable for citation pending a final letter-by-letter collation. Two limits are flagged explicitly in place: (a) the folio of the Q. LXXXII annotation is not visible on the scan; (b) Lang’s full Q. 107 text with its patristic catena (Theodoret, Augustine) has not been supplied as a scan — only his core triad-sentence is verified (see §5). Interpretive syntheses are marked as such.

1. Who Lang was, and his theological position

Biography (CEBR 2:290, entry by Michael Erbe; with ADB XVII 638–9). Johann Lange (Langus) of Karvinà — “formerly Freistadt in Silesia,” the same place under Czech and German names — 16 April 1503 – 25 September 1567, son of a clothmaker. Schooling at Nysa (Neisse); BA at Kraków; matriculated at Vienna 1523 (Greek and law). Briefly taught the boys of the royal chapel at Buda; after the death of King Louis II at Mohács (29 August 1526) returned to Silesia, directing schools at Złotoryja (Goldberg, 1527–8) and Nysa. Town clerk of Świdnica (Schweidnitz) 1532; secretary (1535) then, under Balthasar von Promnitz, chancellor (1539) to the bishops of Wrocław; attached to the household of Queen Elizabeth (wife of Sigismund II Augustus of Poland, daughter of Ferdinand) from 1543; frequently Ferdinand’s ambassador to the Polish court and one of his councillors; retired to Świdnica in 1557, where he died.

A small, select translating œuvre — not a prolific translator. Lang was a high-ranking official and diplomat who translated on the side, late in life. His principal works are only: a collection of Latin poetry; the translation of Nicephorus Callistus’s Historia ecclesiastica (Basel: Oporinus & Herwagen, 1555 — see §4 for the resolution of the date); and the three-volume Justin (Froben, 1565). He collaborated with the Wrocław printer Andreas Winkler. (The ADB-based claim of a posthumous 1588 Nicephorus is corrected in §4.)

Theological position (from the Epistola, see §3). Lang was formed at Neisse under Valentin Crautwald, Caspar Schwenckfeld’s closest theological collaborator; Backus accordingly calls his translation “Schwenckfeldian” (see the separate Lang_Schwenckfeld_Backus_dossier.md). His own preface confirms an evangelical, anti-scholastic, sola-fide theology, argued at length from Paul, sharply critical of the “neoterici doctores,” and organized throughout by an inward/spiritual versus outward/fleshly polarity — the grammar that underlies his non-instrumental reading of Q. 107 (§5).

2. The Epistola Nuncupatoria to Maximilian (Tomus I) — structure

Addressed to Maximilian, King of Bohemia (the future Maximilian II), pp. 3–34 as printed. The letter runs:

1. pp. 3–10 — “Historia sancti Iustini”: biographical/hagiographic account of Justin (Samaritan birth, conversion from Platonism, life under the Antonines, defence before emperors and Senate, martyrdom); notes Justin’s three Apologies, the third (to Marcus Aurelius) lost, in place of which Lang inserts Athenagoras’s Apology (“in hoc Iustini codice, suo loco reposuimus”); interwoven martyrology (Flavia Domitilla, Eustathius, Apollonius under Commodus). Notes Justin’s agreement with Irenaeus, “coetaneus,” per Jerome.
2. pp. 10–24 — theological core: the restoration of “pure ancient religion” grounded in Scripture and the ancient councils/Fathers; the justification controversy and an extended Pauline defence of justification by faith (see §3).
3. pp. 24–26 — confessional-political framing: the antiquity test for orthodoxy (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria) tied to the precedent of Emperor Maximilian I and the Luther controversy (see §3).
4. pp. 26–27 — the translation history (see §3, with the full transcription).
5. p. 27 — the tripartite division of the edition (see §3): the QRO is Lang’s Tomus III.
6. p. 28 — the Nicephorus Callistus dating (see §4).
7. pp. 28–34 — dedicatory exempla (David, Hezekiah, Josiah; Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne), closing in Prudentius’s verses and a prayer, with no place/date formula — a contrast with Maumont (dated 15 August 1554) and Périon (20 June 1554).

3. The theological argument, and its bearing on Q. 107 and the adhortation

The central section (pp. 10–24) is one continuous argument, not a miscellany, built on a single recurring polarity: inward, Spirit-given faith and devotion versus outward, fleshly performance.

(a) The programme (p. 12, margin *”Veteris religionis restitutio”*). Lang hopes the “old and purer religion” can be restored to Christ’s churches only if ancient, sincere Christian doctrine — founded above all in Scripture, then in the primary universal councils and the ancient Fathers “according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit” — is brought back into the schools and churches. Scripture is the pure fountain; the councils and approved Fathers are the trustworthy guide to drawing on it. This is the classic Reformation ad fontes position.

(b) The justification controversy (pp. 12–14). Lang gives a topical example: “Suborta proximis annis fuit, in quadam Germaniae ditione, de Iustificatione hominis scholastica contentio” — a recent controversy over justification in “a certain German territory” that grew into open schism, resolved only by the prince decreeing that justification be taught according to Paul. This almost certainly refers to the Osiandrian controversy in Ducal Prussia (early-to-mid 1550s); the match is close but the identification is not confirmed by name in the text and should be verified against a study of that controversy before being stated as fact. Lang then attacks the “neoterici doctores” for complicating the “simple theory of justifying faith” (margin: *”Simplex de fide iustificante theoria”) with hairsplitting sophistries (quoting Prudentius: *κυμινοπρίσαι “cumin-splitters,” καρδιαμογλύφοι “heart-carvers”).

(c) The Pauline argument (pp. 13–23). An extended defence of justification by faith without the works of the Law (Rom 3–5, Gal 2–6, 1 Cor, Eph): faith reckoned as righteousness (Abraham, Rom 4 / Gen 15); “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love” (Gal 5); works as the necessary fruit of faith but never its ground (“fiducia autem operum nulla habent”; Luke 17, “we are unworthy servants”); the Spirit producing genuine faith and a “new creature.” Interwoven is a Christological excursus on Christ as the one mediator (Irenaeus, Lactantius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, pp. 19–21). On p. 21 Lang explicitly returns from the digression (“redeam ad eum, unde paulo longius sum digressus”) to attack “neophyti, recentesque & ex seipsis nati Theologi, qui antiquorum libros non legunt” — self-made “new” theologians who do not read the ancient books — invoking Jeremiah 6:16: “Stand at the crossroads and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.”

(d) Why this bears on Q. 107. The whole section privileges the inward/Spirit-given over the outward/fleshly — in justification (faith vs works) and in doctrine (the ancient Spirit-guided Fathers vs the self-made neoterici), sharpened by Gal 6’s “he who sows in the Spirit reaps eternal life; he who sows in the flesh reaps corruption.” Q. 107 poses the same question in liturgical form: is the “striking up” (ἀνακρουόμενον) outward instrumental performance, or inward, spiritual utterance? Lang’s choice to read it as carminis praeludio (an intonation of song, not an instrumental sound), and his reordering of the triad to prevent an instrumental reading (§5), is continuous with the theological grammar of the whole letter — not an isolated philological decision.

(e) Why this bears on the closing adhortation. The exempla-driven exhortation to Maximilian (pp. 28–34) calls on him to continue the “restitution of sincere religion” his great-grandfather Maximilian I began, governing under the same Spirit-over-flesh logic; the closing prayer asks that “Christ alone reign in and keep the royal household” (Unus sancta regat servetque palatia Christus) — an inward, spiritual kingship. The document is thus coherent from doctrinal core to translation method to final prayer.

Caution: (d) and (e) are the project’s own synthesis on a careful but not word-for-word verified reading of pp. 13–23; patristic citations are read as attributions, not checked against critical editions.

(f) The confessional-political framing (pp. 24–26). Lang frames the whole project as restitutio priscae religionis: Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem I: novelty = heresy; truth is “what was handed down from the beginning”), Clement of Alexandria (book VII: the earliest Church later degenerated into heresies), 1 John 2:19. He invokes Emperor Maximilian I (the dedicatee’s great-grandfather), who around the time Luther contested papal authority and the sale of indulgences judged that the neglected ancient Fathers should be restored to the churches — tying Lang’s editorial project directly to the Reformation controversy through the addressee’s own family.

(g) The translation-history passage (pp. 26–27), full text. (This is the only full transcription of this passage in the dossier; earlier files had fragments.)

“…incessit animo meo eorum accuratius cognoscendorum, atque mox etiam Latine vertendorum religiosa quaedam cupiditas. In qua versione illud in primis est a me actum, ut fideliter & pure, quantum fieri posset, verba quoque ipsa omnia, aut si id non posset, sententiae tamen autoris tanti exprimerentur: atque ut (iuxta divi Hieronymi consilium) in eis libris quod scriptum esset, transferretur potius, licet quare ita scriptum esset non plane constaret, quam id auferretur vel praetermitteretur quod me lateret: tum autem, ut quaedam loca, vel mendosa, vel intercisa, coniectura non inconsiderata & castigarentur & farcirentur, signo semicirculorum, puncto adiecto, notata. Cum aut translationem huiusmodi, Deo adiuvante, iam absolvissem: tum primum operum eorundem, una Ioachimi Perionii Galli, & altera Sigismundi Gelenii Boiemi, interpretatio Latina in manus pervenere meas. Eas ubi perlegi, nihil admodum meae operae poenituit. Nam & Perionius, egregius profecto vir, Graece atque Latine insigniter doctus, & professione Theologus, non tantum diligentiae & studii in Iustino transferendo, quantum in quibusdam Aristotelis libris tersius interpretandis posuisse, ac stylo aliquantulum expolito indulsisse: & Gelenius, doctus & ipse homo, & plurium linguarum sciens, accelerata translatione sua, cui etiam immortuus est: aut certe typographus, cui ille operam suam locavit, gratia novitatis, & commodum quoque aliquod, si ex officina eius Iustinus Latine primum editus prodiisset, captasse videtur. Quod tamen aliis eruditioribus iudicandum permitto. Itaque ut aliqua ex parte Opus hoc publicaretur absolutius, & cum maiore utilitate a pietatis studiosis legeretur libentius, excudendam etiam versionem meam aliquanto serius, propter certa impedimenta, quam aliquorum hominum expectatio tulit, curavi, Praefationibus meis & antiquorum Patrum autoritatibus & sententiis illustratam.”

Translation. *”…a certain devout desire arose in my mind to know these works more accurately, and soon also to translate them into Latin. In this translation my first concern was that, so far as possible, the words themselves, all of them, should be faithfully and purely rendered — or if that were not possible, at least the sense of so great an author; and that (following the counsel of the blessed Jerome) what was written in those books should be translated, even where it was not clear why it was so written, rather than that anything unclear to me should be removed or passed over; further, that certain places, corrupt or broken off, should be emended and filled out by not inconsiderate conjecture, marked with the sign of half-circles with a point added. When I had already finished such a translation, with God’s help, only then did the Latin renderings of the same works come into my hands — one by Joachim Périon the Frenchman, the other by Sigismund Gelenius the Bohemian. Having read them through, I did not at all regret my labour. For Périon, truly an excellent man, remarkably learned in Greek and Latin and a theologian by profession, seems to have spent not so much diligence on translating Justin as on rendering certain books of Aristotle more elegantly, and to have indulged somewhat in polishing his style; and Gelenius, himself a learned man skilled in several languages, seems — by his hurried translation, over which he even died, or at least [it was] the printer to whom he had let out his labour, for the sake of novelty and some profit, if Justin had come out first in Latin from his shop — to have been chasing [that]. This, however, I leave to more learned men to judge. And so, that this work might be published somewhat more complete, and read more gladly by the devout, I saw to it that my own translation — printed somewhat later than some men’s expectation demanded, on account of certain impediments — was illustrated with my own prefaces and with the authority and pronouncements of the ancient Fathers.”*

Points established: Lang’s translation method (word-for-word where possible, on Jerome’s authority; never silently omitting; a half-circle-with-point mark for conjectural repair). The independence claim (“only then did they come into my hands”). Lang’s own statement that he delayed publication deliberately to add his prefaces and patristic authorities — i.e. the catena was a considered, delay-causing addition, his defence of the edition. (On the independence claim’s implausibility and Backus’s textual disproof of it, see Lang_Schwenckfeld_Backus_dossier.md.)

(h) The tripartite division (p. 27), full text.

“Ego vero, ut scripta sua ordine excusa in publicum prodirent, diviso opere toto in Tomos tres: in Primum ea quae ad Gentes de plurimae divinitatis impietate, quae ad Senatum principesque Romanos pro Christianorum defensione, & quae ad presbyterum Paulum de profana ac potissimum Aristotelicae philosophiae eversione edidit; in Secundum, Dialogum Tryphone, ubi Iudaei pervicacis erroris sui convincuntur, ac de veritate certitudineque Christianae religionis eruduntur; in Tertium, quae Ecclesiae filiis, Christianis orthodoxis, conscripsit, contuli.”

Translation. *”I divided the whole work into three volumes: into the First, the works against the Gentiles on the impiety of polytheism, those to the Roman Senate and princes in defence of the Christians, and that to the presbyter Paul on the overturning of profane and especially Aristotelian philosophy; into the Second, the Dialogue with Trypho, where the Jew is convicted of his obstinate error and instructed in the truth of the Christian religion; into the Third, I have gathered what he wrote for the children of the Church, the orthodox Christians.”*

→ The QRO is Tomus III, characterized by Lang as written “for the children of the Church, the orthodox Christians” — his own placement of the work within the corpus.

4. The Nicephorus Callistus dating — 1555, not 1588

The CEBR/ADB discrepancy (CEBR: 1555, Oporinus & Herwagen; project’s ADB note: posthumous 1588) is resolved by Lang’s own internal dating (p. 28):

“Et cum nono abhinc anno, Nicephori Callisti Ecclesiasticae historiae libros, ex Graeco in Latinum sermonem versos, Sacratissimo Principi, Romanorum tum Regi, nunc Imperatori, FERDINANDO, Celsitudinis tuae Parenti, hero meo benignissimo, inscripserim…”

Translation. *”And since, nine years ago, I dedicated the books of Nicephorus Callistus’s Ecclesiastical History, translated from Greek into Latin, to the most sacred Prince, then King, now Emperor, of the Romans, FERDINAND, Your Highness’s father…”*

“Nine years ago,” from the 1565 edition, places the Nicephorus dedication at c. 1555/1556 — confirming CEBR’s 1555 and correcting the ADB-based 1588 (treat 1588 as erroneous or a later reissue). The passage also confirms the deliberate dynastic pattern of dedication: Nicephorus to Ferdinand, Justin now to his son Maximilian.

5. Authenticity of the QRO (Tomus III): two places of doubt

Lang registers doubt in two places, both scan-verified.

(a) Preface to the Responsiones ad Orthodoxos (p. 54)

Heading.

IN DVOS DIVI IVSTINI, PHILOSOPHI ET MARTYRIS CHRISTI, RESPONSIONVM siue solutionum Christianarum quarundam, & Graecarum quaestionum, ad Orthodoxos conscriptos Libros, Praefatio.

Genre defence (first movement of the preface). Before raising authenticity, Lang defends the quaestiones genre as ancient and venerable: from the earliest Church, learned and pious men inquired into the obscure places of faith and Scripture “with a devout curiosity” (religiosa quadam curiositate); this method (per quaestiones & decisiones) was later begun by the doctors of Paris, handed down “as if from hand to hand,” and named Scholastica theologia — so the method is “by no means new” (minime novam); Augustine himself issued many books of such quaestiones. He then criticizes the neoterici theologi for departing from the ancient doctors: clinging stubbornly (mordicus) to their school’s decreta; using new formulas and terms “lately invented in their academies”; and drawing in an Aristotle “rendered without learning” (indocte versa). (The passage names no individuals and no confession; whether Lang targets specifically Roman school-theology is inference, not stated — see note below.)

The authenticity passage (second paragraph).

Non inueniuntur autem duo haec Iustini uolumina, in librorum eius nomenclatura, quae apud Ecclesiasticos historicos & Hieronymum reperitur. Et quamuis eo nomine, & alijs quoque de causis addubitari possit, an illa Iustini philosophi & martyris nostri genuina sint scripta, nec ne: non illibenter tamen ea uiri studiosi & pij, neque sine fructu multo legent. De rebus enim magnis & scitu necessarijs, ad salutis nostrae mysterium, & fidei Christianae finem prolixius cognoscendum, sunt compositi, priscam & simplicem eruditionem, & eruditam religionem redolentes: ut facilè sancti philosophi & martyris pietatem agnoscas. Quibus legendis posteri, per annotationes adscribere quaedam potuerunt: quae deinceps non satis considerati scribae, in ipsum autoris uerborum contextum, per imperitiam inseruerunt.

Translation. These two volumes of Justin are not found in the list of his books given by the ecclesiastical historians and by Jerome. And although on that ground — and for other reasons too — one may doubt whether these are genuine writings of our Justin the philosopher and martyr, or not, the studious and pious reader will nonetheless read them not unwillingly and not without much profit. For they are composed on matters great and necessary for a fuller understanding of the mystery of our salvation and the end of the Christian faith, redolent of an ancient and simple learning and a learned religion, so that one easily recognizes the piety of the holy philosopher and martyr. In reading them, later readers were able to add certain things by way of annotations — which subsequently careless scribes, through want of skill, inserted into the very context of the author’s words.

→ Catalogue-absence (not in Jerome) grounds the doubt; Lang prints the work anyway for its piety and profit; and he names a mechanism of textual contamination — marginal annotations later absorbed into the text by careless scribes.

(b) Annotation to Quaestio LXXXII — the Origen anachronism

The Answer to Q. LXXXII (on the demons’ names) ends: *”Ab Origine uerò appellationum istarum significatio, in Ebraicorum nominum interpretatione exposita est”* (“and from Origen the meaning of these names has been set out”). Lang appends:

Haec uerba, nisi adiecticia sunt, in dubium uocare possunt, an hic à beato Iustino compositus sit liber. Aliquanto namq; post Iustinum, in Ecclesia Christi apud Alexandriam floruit Origenes: sub Alexandro Seuero uidelicet, cuius cum matre Mammaea fuisse Origenes dicitur. Iustinus autem sub Antoninis uixit, & sub Commodo martyrio defunctus est. Fieri tamen potuit, ut tum quoq; scriptum hoc in manibus Christianorum fuerit, in iuuenili ab eo aetate compositum.

Translation. These words, unless they are an interpolation, can call into question whether this book was composed by the blessed Justin. For Origen flourished in the Church of Christ at Alexandria some while after Justin — namely under Alexander Severus, with whose mother Mammaea Origen is said to have associated. Justin lived under the Antonines and died a martyr under Commodus. Yet it may be that this writing too was already in the hands of Christians at that time, composed by him in his youth.

→ A concrete anachronism argument: the Answer cites Origen, who post-dates Justin; so the ascription is doubtful unless the words are an interpolation (adiecticia) — the same contamination loophole as in the preface. Lang leaves one escape (a youthful composition).

Chronological significance. Lang’s anachronism argument (1565) precedes Sixtus of Siena’s (Bibliotheca Sancta, 1566) by a year — and Maumont’s (1554) precedes both. The standard account crediting Sixtus with the first anachronism argument, and reducing Lang’s doubt to mere catalogue-caution, is therefore inexact (see the article’s §I authenticity footnotes).

Verification note. Preface p. 54 is printed on the leaf and verified. The folio of the Q. LXXXII annotation is not visible on the supplied image and is not yet verified.

6. Q. 107 in Lang’s translation

The verified core. Lang’s rendering of the triad at the heart of Q. 107 (scan-verified):

Verbum namque Dei est, & quod animi cogitatione (ἐνθυμούμενον), quod carminis praeludio (ἀνακρούμενον), quod carmine ipso (ᾀδόμενον) celebratur: ac daemones fugat atque depellit.

Translation. For it is the Word of God, which is celebrated by the thought of the mind (ἐνθυμούμενον), by the prelude of a song (ἀνακρούμενον), and by the song itself (ᾀδόμενον); and it routs and drives off the demons.

Two features, both interpretively loaded:

1. Lang glosses the Greek in parentheses beside his Latin — philological honesty, letting the reader check the word behind each rendering.
2. He reorders the triad, placing the prelude-term (carminis praeludio, ἀνακρουόμενον) second, between “thought” and “song itself,” so the sequence reads thought → prelude → song. This makes ἀνακρουόμενον a transitional act of vocal intonation (the ἀνάκρουσις sense, the lead-in before the melody) rather than a separate instrumental mode — and so sidesteps the contradiction with the Answer’s own opening rejection of instruments. This reordering is precisely “the thing a translator must not do” (moving the word) that the article’s §I highlights, and it is the philological expression of the inward/spiritual theology set out in §3.

A translation choice elsewhere in Q. 107. Lang renders the Greek νηπιότητα (“childishness/immaturity of mind”) as insipientia (“folly/unwisdom”), shifting the sense from a temporary developmental stage (childhood) toward a more permanent lack of spiritual insight. (Sylburg later, following Vulcanius, corrects and sharpens several such points; e.g. where Lang has instruments merely “not taken up,” Sylburg shows the Greek means they were actively removed from church song, e cantionibus sublatus est: Annotationes, p. 458.)

Gap flagged — the full Q. 107 with catena is not in the supplied scans. Lang’s Q. 107 in Tomus III was accompanied, like his other questions, by his own patristic catena (the dossier’s §I treats this catena as Lang’s defence of his reading — see §3(g), the deliberately added “antiquorum Patrum autoritatibus & sententiis”). The full Latin text of Lang’s Q. 107 question + answer + catena (with Theodoret and Augustine) has not been supplied as a page image, and is therefore not transcribed here. The Book III scan on hand (LANGE_q82_origenes_BOOKIIIextracted.pdf) covers qq. LXXXII–LXXXIV only, not Q. 107. To complete this section, a scan of Lang’s Q. 107 pages (Tomus III) is needed; the catena’s specific patristic citations should not be reconstructed from memory or from the other translators’ versions.

7. Appended paratext (Tomus I): poems (p. 36) and the Praefatio to the Oratio ad Gentiles (pp. 37–40)

Not part of the Epistola; a separate paratext block following the Jerome/Epiphanius testimonia.

(a) Two poems (p. 36).

1. A votive epigram (Greek + Lang’s Latin): *”Ob pulsos Langus morbos, partamque salutem, / Haec votiva tibi munera CHRISTE refert”* — Lang thanks Christ for recovery from illness. New biographical detail: an illness during the project, a further concrete reason for the delayed publication.
2. A iambic poem “To the Christian reader, on holy Justin” (signed I.L.): the many dig a stagnant cistern, but Justin leads a stream from a truly divine source, sweet and clear, “with the Holy Spirit guiding his pious hands”; followed again by Jeremiah 6:16 — confirming that verse as Lang’s recurring leitmotif (the ancient path vs. the broken cisterns of the moderns; cf. Jer 2:13).

(b) Praefatio to the Oratio ad Gentiles (the Cohortatio, a different work from the QRO). Argument: Moses the oldest lawgiver, older than the Greek poets/philosophers; Orpheus, Homer, Pythagoras, Plato, and above all the Sibyl point, “as if by recantation,” to the one God; Numenius via Origen, “Plato is Moses speaking Attic Greek” (Platon Atticus Moses), with extended Plato/Moses parallels (creation, paradise, Babel, the fall of Lucifer); typological close (p. 40): Plato paraphrased as awaiting one “more venerable and holier” who will unlock the fountains of truth — Plato as unwitting forerunner of Christ.

The instrumental metaphor — for prophetic inspiration, not liturgy.

“Res enim divinas non nisi ab earum peritis doctoribus tradi posse, quales sacri nostri vates fuerint, Spiritus sancti afflatu & ductu de eis edocti: quibus, in reb. arcanis promulgandis, coelitus descendens divinum plectrum tanquam musicis instrumentis sit usum.”

Translation. *”For divine things can only be handed down by teachers skilled in them — such as our sacred prophets were, taught by the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit; in whom, for the promulgation of hidden things, the divine plectrum descending from heaven made use of them as if they were musical instruments.”*

→ Lang uses a positive instrumental image, but the instrument is the prophet himself, passively played by the Spirit — a metaphor for inspiration, not an endorsement of instrumental music in worship. This sharpens rather than contradicts the Q. 107 reading: “instrument” is acceptable as a figure for the Spirit acting through a person (inward), but not as a literal practice added to worship by human hands (outward). The two uses are consistent within Lang’s inward/outward grammar.

8. Summary — what this dossier establishes about Lang

1. A minor, occasional translator, not a prolific one: Latin poems, Nicephorus Callistus (1555), and the 1565 Justin; a high official and diplomat by career; collaborator of the printer Andreas Winkler.
2. An evangelical, anti-scholastic, sola-fide theology organized by an inward/spiritual vs. outward/fleshly polarity (formed under Crautwald; “Schwenckfeldian” per Backus) — the grammar behind his non-instrumental Q. 107 reading and his closing prayer for inward spiritual kingship.
3. Authenticity doubt in two places: catalogue-absence (preface p. 54) and the Origen anachronism (Q. LXXXII), both tied to a scribal-interpolation mechanism — and both earlier than Sixtus (1566), though later than Maumont (1554).
4. The tripartite edition places the QRO as Tomus III, “for the orthodox Christians.”
5. Nicephorus dated 1555, not 1588, on Lang’s own internal evidence.
6. Q. 107: carminis praeludio with the triad reordered to force a non-instrumental (vocal-intonation) reading; νηπιότητα rendered insipientia. The full Q. 107 with catena remains to be transcribed from a Tomus III scan not yet supplied.
7. The catena was a deliberate, delay-causing addition — Lang’s own defence of his edition — and the prophetic-inspiration “plectrum” metaphor confirms his objection is to outward liturgical instruments, not to instrumental imagery as such.

Open items: (a) confirm the Osiandrian identification (§3b) against a secondary source; (b) obtain a scan of Lang’s Q. 107 pages (Tomus III) to transcribe the full question, answer, and catena; (c) verify the folio of the Q. LXXXII annotation; (d) on the independence claim and Backus’s disproof, and the “Schwenckfeldian” glosses, see Lang_Schwenckfeld_Backus_dossier.md.